The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-26-2011, 09:42 PM   #1
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,834

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default Why do some defend the players as being victims here?

Why do some defend the players as being victims here?

Let's back up a bit and remember all of he player/player rep rhetoric about how the NFL owners/league were terrified of an uncapped year, and that they had leverage in getting what they wanted in a new CBA, once the owners opted out of the old one.

The players BADLY miscalculated that, because the uncapped year didn't turn into the out of control bidding war that players expected, but instead a chance for owners to dump bad contracts without worrying about salary cap hits and to have their restricted free agents locked up for another year or so.

During this time, De Smith and players were talking tough about how they weren't going to concede anything without big counter concessions from the league. For instance, they knew the owners wanted a rookie salary cap, so they let it be known that in return, the league would have to raise the minimum salary per team. Their ridiculous logic was that if you take x dollars from the rookies, you have to increase the salary minimum/floor by that amount to give the savings to the vets. That's the level of flawed logic and spin the league is dealing with. Simply implementing a rookie cap, while keeping the existing floor, would automatically funnel more dollars to the vets for those teams that hover around the floor in terms of salaries.

The Players and De Smith (a big time litigator from a big time lobbying firm -- Patton Boggs) believed they had great leverage points: The league not wanting an uncapped year and the league wanting a rookie salary cap. Therefore, by all accounts, they have not negotiated in good faith, but simply made outrageous demands and threats, like decertifying and suing, which is not conducive to healthy bargaining.

From the owners perspective, with the players threatening to decertify and sue, and some rumblings about a possible strike, when there was zero progress made in negotiations, the lockout made the most sense.

However, there was a LONG string of player/player rep actions that made the lockout about the only option for the league to take.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 05-26-2011, 09:48 PM   #2
DBroncos4life
Hey pic Mod!?!?! FU
 
DBroncos4life's Avatar
 
Bacon bits

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: The wrong side of right.
Posts: 28,477

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Julius "Fluff"
Default

They all rich so F them. Without fans there wouldn't even be a NFL.
DBroncos4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 09:59 PM   #3
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,834

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBroncos4life View Post
They all rich so F them. Without fans there wouldn't even be a NFL.
Without drivers, there wouldn't be an automotive industry...
without bowlers, there wouldn't be a bowling industry...
without viewers, there wouldn't be a television industry...

The list could go on forever.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 10:04 PM   #4
Boss Man
Solid Starter
 

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 237

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Without drivers, there wouldn't be an automotive industry...
without bowlers, there wouldn't be a bowling industry...
without viewers, there wouldn't be a television industry...

The list could go on forever.
ignorant comeback is ignorant...

95% of "drivers" are not rich
95% of "bowlers" are not rich
95% of "tv viewers" are not rich

100% of NFL player are "rich" by our economical standards, and if there were no fans of the nfl there would be NO money....

IGNORANCE, pls go
Boss Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 10:21 PM   #5
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,834

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss Man View Post
ignorant comeback is ignorant...

95% of "drivers" are not rich
95% of "bowlers" are not rich
95% of "tv viewers" are not rich

100% of NFL player are "rich" by our economical standards, and if there were no fans of the nfl there would be NO money....

IGNORANCE, pls go
It's not ignorant, but since you are slow on the uptake, I will explain the point to you.

He said that without fans there would be no NFL. I pointed out there are countless other industries that would not "be" if not for those people that buy, use or watch the product. There would be no movie industry if people didn't buy tickets and go to the theaters.

As to your, dare I say "ignorant" response, you missed it by a mile. I didn't say the bowlers, drivers or viewers were rich, so your statement to that effect was, well, again, "ignorant". In the analogy, they are the same as the fans.

Movie and TV viewers are what allows Sitcom stars to get $1 million an episode, and the co-stars hundreds of thousands an episode, with 13-22 episodes produced a year.

There is nothing unique about the NFL where it has a consumer without whom the industry wouldn't survive. With few exceptions, that's all industries/businesses. The only real separation is that some are recreational or discretionary, like watching TV, going to movies, watching/attending sports, bowling, etc., etc., etc., while others are more essential such as buying food, clothes, etc.

It always amazes me when some people can't have a discussion without being a total dillwad, but it amazes me more how often the total dillwad makes an idiotic post/point while being the dillwad.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 08:00 AM   #6
Spider
Mr Diplomacy
 
Spider's Avatar
 
I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder
Posts: 84,163

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
It's not ignorant, but since you are slow on the uptake, I will explain the point to you.
..... one of these days u will see that it isnt all of us that r clueless , and see you are
Spider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 10:06 PM   #7
DBroncos4life
Hey pic Mod!?!?! FU
 
DBroncos4life's Avatar
 
Bacon bits

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: The wrong side of right.
Posts: 28,477

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Julius "Fluff"
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Without drivers, there wouldn't be an automotive industry...
without bowlers, there wouldn't be a bowling industry...
without viewers, there wouldn't be a television industry...

The list could go on forever.
Sorry dude the fans are the bigger victims in all this BS.
DBroncos4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 10:23 PM   #8
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,834

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBroncos4life View Post
Sorry dude the fans are the bigger victims in all this BS.
I don't doubt that, but we don't have a seat or say in the negotiations. My issue is trying to understand why so many treat the players as these down trodden victims as if they were making third world wages, and all they want to do is play football, and the mean owners aren't letting them play the game they love.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 10:36 PM   #9
maven
★☆★☆★☆★☆★☆★☆★☆★☆★
 
maven's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 9,486
Default

This is all about greed on both sides. The fans are the losers in this. And the fans can pick up and walk away and do something else.
maven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 10:38 PM   #10
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,834

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maven View Post
This is all about greed on both sides. The fans are the losers in this. And the fans can pick up and walk away and do something else.
36 holes of golf instead of 18 on Sundays in the fall, or for the church goers, 18 holes after church, rather than rushing home to watch the game, or heading to the stadium.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 11:01 PM   #11
SonOfLe-loLang
Young Buck
 
SonOfLe-loLang's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 19,012

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Thunder (RIP)
Default

Youre forgetting a major point. The owners are locking out the players, the players would be fine with the status quo. Also, the owners did not negotiate the tv deal in good faith (something the CBA instructs them to do).
SonOfLe-loLang is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 12:35 AM   #12
DivineBronco
Ring of Famer
 
if you like Cutler you are my enemy

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,048
Default

right or wrong does not really matter in this here tussle. This stand off will not end until the owners get most of what they want. They could miss a year of football and be fine the players can not. That really is the end all be all of the story. We get football when the players give up
DivineBronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 01:00 AM   #13
ol#7
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

I think that most fans do see the danger in this if the players were to get there way. The NFL is king because every market can compete. Not so in other sports. Add to that teams can keep face of the franchise players and you have the best set-up for the fans. That doesnt necessarily translates to what would be best for the players, but I think they are already more than adequately compensated for the entertainment they provide. Much like Charlie Sheen, at some point your to big a pain in the ass and too big for your britches to be worth it. Wish the other leagues would follow suite, but in baseball the major markets would never give that much money/leverage back, think the NBA is probably headed that way in order to survive.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 05:20 AM   #14
TheElusiveKyleOrton
BOOM.
 
TheElusiveKyleOrton's Avatar
 
Touched By God

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 10,590
Default

II don't really see either side as the "victim." Neither side is.

Though I would question the brightness behind calling the players rich and discussing how indefensible they are and not doing likewise for the owners, but...
__________________
Nobody puts Jay-bee in the corner.
TheElusiveKyleOrton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 05:23 AM   #15
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 46,750

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

For me...the owners own the business. It belongs to them, if the players don't like it...go do something else. Go be Anne Frank or something.
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 05:58 AM   #16
cmhargrove
Is this thing on???
 
cmhargrove's Avatar
 
Travis Henry's love child...

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 6,703

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton Hillis
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
For me...the owners own the business. It belongs to them, if the players don't like it...go do something else. Go be Anne Frank or something.
As a business owner, I approve this remark.

Seriously, I think that making a few hundred thousand (or several million) a year for playing a game is a pretty sweet gig. What they are being paid is definitely "fair."

The Rookie Cap makes sense, for the very reasons tdnator stated before. Same escalating cap system - less for the untested rookies = More left over for thhe proven veteran players.

Get r done fellas.
cmhargrove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 06:00 AM   #17
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,834

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmhargrove View Post
As a business owner, I approve this remark.

Seriously, I think that making a few hundred thousand (or several million) a year for playing a game is a pretty sweet gig. What they are being paid is definitely "fair."

The Rookie Cap makes sense, for the very reasons tdnator stated before. Same escalating cap system - less for the untested rookies = More left over for thhe proven veteran players.

Get r done fellas.
I think the rookie minimum was in the $300k range, and veteran minimum in the $800-900k range. Obviously, these are the minimums and many players get far in excess of the "minimum wage" of $300-900k, depending on how long you've been in the league.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2011, 10:52 PM   #18
mkporter
Ring of Famer
 
mkporter's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,675

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
For me...the owners own the business. It belongs to them, if the players don't like it...go do something else. Go be Anne Frank or something.
This is the pro-owner viewpoint that I least understand. Have you noticed that it doesn't really matter how awful an owner is, they still make crap loads of money? Dan Snyder? Have you thought to ask yourself why this is?

The primary answer is that NFL teams are allowed to operate in a legal cartel. They can engage in all kinds of anti-competitive practices (the draft, franchise tags, revenue sharing, salary caps, collective bargaining for TV rights, etc) which both enhance the quality of their product, and ensure that competition is nearly impossible. There are laws against these kind of practices that most every other company has to abide by. How is the NFL able to operate in such a manner? The answer is that PLAYERS have agreed to it, via their union and a collectively bargained agreement. In exchange, they get other considerations (minimum salaries, salary floors, free agency, etc). The success of the league is due to this partnership.

If the owners don't like the business that are in, they can sell it to someone else. Absolutely no one will care.

That said, I don't feel sorry for either side. Both sides have repeatedly operated in bad faith, and either side has the capability to kill the golden goose. The players need to get serious about negotiating, as the owners are at least pretending at this point.
mkporter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2011, 11:59 PM   #19
boltaneer
17
 
boltaneer's Avatar
 
ATTA BABY!

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: America's Finest City
Posts: 4,358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkporter View Post
This is the pro-owner viewpoint that I least understand. Have you noticed that it doesn't really matter how awful an owner is, they still make crap loads of money? Dan Snyder? Have you thought to ask yourself why this is?
This is why fans should not spend money on a bad product. But fans are so "brainwashed" (for the lack of a better term) to be such hardcore fans of their team, win or lose.

The fact that the Redskins sell out every year with the crap product they put on the field is all on the fans, not Dan Snyder. Fans have to give owners an incentive to put a better product on the field. I believe Snyder wants to win but losing and making a boat load of money while doing so is a nice consolation prize I'm sure.

Remember the Chargers in the late 90s and early 2000s? They had that stupid ticket guarantee with the city that ensured all their games were sold out. That put no incentive on Spanos to put a better product on the field and those were some of the most awful teams in the franchises history. Just like Synder though, I believe Spanos wants to win but once the ticket guarantee was gone, the product improved. It wasn't the only reason why but it sure did play a factor in it.
boltaneer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2011, 12:31 AM   #20
mkporter
Ring of Famer
 
mkporter's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,675

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boltaneer View Post
This is why fans should not spend money on a bad product. But fans are so "brainwashed" (for the lack of a better term) to be such hardcore fans of their team, win or lose.

The fact that the Redskins sell out every year with the crap product they put on the field is all on the fans, not Dan Snyder. Fans have to give owners an incentive to put a better product on the field. I believe Snyder wants to win but losing and making a boat load of money while doing so is a nice consolation prize I'm sure.

Remember the Chargers in the late 90s and early 2000s? They had that stupid ticket guarantee with the city that ensured all their games were sold out. That put no incentive on Spanos to put a better product on the field and those were some of the most awful teams in the franchises history. Just like Synder though, I believe Spanos wants to win but once the ticket guarantee was gone, the product improved. It wasn't the only reason why but it sure did play a factor in it.
Two things:
1) My point was more that the league has such a sweet setup because of the ability to operate as a cartel, that any owner can make money regardless of their ability. Even if they put out a bad product, and fans don't go to their games, they still get most of their money from revenue sharing.

2) Only a chargers fan would advocate for fans to be more "fair weather."
mkporter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2011, 03:02 AM   #21
boltaneer
17
 
boltaneer's Avatar
 
ATTA BABY!

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: America's Finest City
Posts: 4,358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkporter View Post
Two things:
1) My point was more that the league has such a sweet setup because of the ability to operate as a cartel, that any owner can make money regardless of their ability. Even if they put out a bad product, and fans don't go to their games, they still get most of their money from revenue sharing.
I do agree that the owners do have a sweet setup but...

IF what the owners is saying is true, that some teams are losing money, then yes, fans not filling the seats of the stadium would hurt the owners quite a bit more.

I found a good explanation on how the revenue sharing works. (I did not know the home team keeps only 60% of the gate.)

http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html

Another thing that really bugs me are PSLs. I cannot believe fans would pay large amounts of money just for the right to have season tickets. And that's a lot of money going into owners pockets. Could you imagine having to pay a large fee to your cable company before you become a customer just for the right to watch TV? People would revolt against that so fast, you couldn't believe it.

Supposedly the owners offered to open their books to a third party right before the union decided to turn down the extension and decertify. I really wish the union would have accepted that offer and continued negotiations. Not that the numbers would have become public (I'm sure they wouldn't have) but I'm sure we would have found out in general whether the owners were telling the truth or not.

I wonder now if the owners will even offer that again if they win the June 3rd court ruling, they'll have all the leverage at that point.
boltaneer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2011, 07:20 AM   #22
DrFate
Lord of Order
 
DrFate's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Tower of Fate
Posts: 4,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkporter View Post
1) My point was more that the league has such a sweet setup because of the ability to operate as a cartel, that any owner can make money regardless of their ability.
You have an interesting take on this. I ask you - could any of the major sports franchise continue to operate if they weren't a cartel?
DrFate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 06:05 AM   #23
orinjkrush
...
 
orinjkrush's Avatar
 
Hey, no hurling on the shell, dude,

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: FrontRangeAbove8500ft
Posts: 5,127

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ben Garland
Default

billionaire owners and millionaire players arguing about how to scam thousands from fans and trillions from TV. where's Geithner when you need his butt?
orinjkrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 06:16 AM   #24
Rugby7
Solid Starter
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: SO CAL
Posts: 122
Default

There is no status quo. The owners and players agreed to a CBA that included an option for the owners to end the CBA after 2 years and they exercised that right. That deal is history so now the players and owners need to negotiate a new one. I think D. Smith blew it. If they would have continued to negotiate with the threat of litigation in their back pocket the players would of at least had some kind of leverage. Now the owners are pissed and if the players lose in court they are going to get *** ***** by the owners.
Rugby7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2011, 09:15 AM   #25
DarkHorse30
Smith Rules
 
DarkHorse30's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,228

Adopt-a-Bronco:
wolf pot roast
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugby7 View Post
There is no status quo. The owners and players agreed to a CBA that included an option for the owners to end the CBA after 2 years and they exercised that right. That deal is history so now the players and owners need to negotiate a new one. I think D. Smith blew it. If they would have continued to negotiate with the threat of litigation in their back pocket the players would of at least had some kind of leverage. Now the owners are pissed and if the players lose in court they are going to get *** ***** by the owners.
If this guy loves to litigate, he should go to congress. How bad do I dislike this guy? I'd rather have upshaw.....
DarkHorse30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:25 PM.


Denver Broncos